There are far more dangerous claims than this.

Yes, a double-standard on the Republicans' part. There is a difference between a Supreme Court Justice dying and being replaced 9 months prior to an election and one being replaced just six weeks prior.

Above all else, what I see happening is that it's become more and more obvious that more clearly defined rules or laws need to be put in place regarding when a president can or cannot appoint a new Justice, prior to an election. What I think is also apparent is that the entire system of appointing Justices needs to be re-examined and 'upgraded' in order to try to secure a more balanced Supreme Court.

I guess that makes it ok then. Nice job normalizing hypocrisy.

Ahhh, as long as there are more dangerous ones, yours is ok. I’m really getting the hang of this.

Sorry that's just an entirely partisan view which overlooks the clear constitutional position which makes clear that the republicans had the mandate both to block the Obama judge and to appoint their own judge.

There ARE clearly defined rules you just don't like them.

Horse dung. Their excuse for blocking Obama's pick had nothing to do with any imaginary "mandate" in 2016, it was based on McConnell pulling out some dusty old rule so he could continue his vow to obstruct everything Obama tried to do.

Likewise, Trump's 46% of the vote is hardly a mandate.

And neither of those could ever constitute "clearly defined rules".

It's nothing to do with what the Republicans have said - which I totally agree is all over the place. It's to do with what the constitution says. Article II, Section II of the Constitution.

If Trump has a mandate simply because he's the current president, despite having lost the popular vote, then Obama had the mandate in 2016, having handily won both the EC and popular vote. Either way the hypocrisy is maddening and your previous post was full of problems.

No.... the mandate lies with the senate. Which the republicans held in 2016 and now in 2020. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. If the democrats want their way they are going to have to win the senate at some stage.

(When I said Trump has a mandate I meant in general terms - the election of the Sc Justice rests with the senate).

I would vote Biden in this election, so don't shoot the messenger!

Or can we all try to live up to the standards of RBG and Scalia perhaps? Argue your point but not take it personally and respect that others may in fact, have a point?

You may not agree with their perspective and that's fine. But let's not make it personal if possible

I wrote this in another thread:

So what’s in the constitution is that the senate judiciary evaluates the president’s candidate, and the senate approves (or not) the candidate. The constitution says nothing about timing, so it is at the whim of the senate majority leader and the judiciary committee.

Seems like they could set some criteria on timing. Otherwise it gives the parties too much power. I think waiting 9 months is too long, and the argument “let the people decide” is disingenuous.

Election is in November, even should Trump lose he still has 2 1/2 months to go after!

Tom

So the mandate lies here in one case, and there in the other case, but in 2016 the other mandate was more mandate-y than this mandate, because in the end anybody can do whatever they want as long as they cheat, double-talk, move the goal posts and deny what they said four years prior, which actually has nothing to do with a mandate. And then we can take that and say boo-hoo the rules are clear and you just don't like them.

F me.

You're repeating yourself.

If he looses, he might be too busy.

It's your country's constitution not mine! I agree the republican senators are duplicitous!

Exactly. But the rules are not clear and perhaps should be clarified.

Great, so stop using my country's constitution, of which you have a limited understanding – especially when it comes to what's a mandate and what's not a mandate – to taunt other users.

It's more than a little incendiary.

Read Frank Bruni‘s opinion in The NY Times. I found it interesting. One of his points is that a majority is not necessarily a mandate.

https://www.mcall.com/featured/sns-n...27i-story.html

Some people need reminding.

Tom